Sean Hannity Still Doing His Best To Turn Sestak Into Watergate 2
Reported by Ellen - May 29, 2010 -
Sean Hannity is still so keyed up over what he sees as Watergate 2, that he canceled his day off on Friday (5/28/10) in order to host an entire edition of Hannity devoted to Sestak-gate. Ignoring the comments made earlier on Fox News by Michael Mukasey, former AG for the Bush administration, saying it’s “highly questionable" and "a stretch" that any crime was committed, Hannity put together his own legal panel made up of guests he almost surely knew would say otherwise. In fact, even without all the facts of the case at hand, the two lawyers on Hannity declared it a certainty that a crime had been committed. With video.
As Sam Stein in the Huffington Post reported,
Two prominent public integrity lawyers with white-collar crime and Justice Department experience say that if the White House and Sestak's account of what happened is to be believed, then no sober-minded prosecutor would pursue the case…
…There was no money offered or threats made, they note. And while the administration did dangle the prospect of serving in a non-compensated position, it hardly constituted the type of ethical indiscretion that spurred investigations in the past.
(One of the attorneys consulted by Stein) noted the firing of U.S. Attorneys during the Bush years, in which officials were dismissed ostensibly for the purpose of benefiting Republican congressional candidates. Compared to that, he added, the Sestak saga "looks silly."
But Hannity, who never finished college, much less started law school declared definitively that a crime had taken place. “I’m sorry, Mr. Bauer, but you may want to head back to law school.” Hannity sneered rhetorically to White House counsel Robert Bauer. Bauer had released a memo earlier in the day stating, “We have concluded that allegations of improper conduct rest on factual errors and lack a basis in the law.” But legal eagle Hannity knew better. “It is a federal crime to promise an appointment or employment as a reward for any political activity,” he said.
But Hannity forgot to point out that, as the legal experts cited by Huffington Post noted, “There was no money offered or threats made… And while the administration did dangle the prospect of serving in a non-compensated position, it hardly constituted the type of ethical indiscretion that spurred investigations in the past.”
If you don’t believe the Huffington Post, how about Mukasey? Despite Megyn Kelly’s obvious attempts to prod him into saying a crime had been committed, Mukasey called it “a stretch” and “highly questionable whether there was a crime.” Mukasey also noted that not all the facts are in.
But Mukasey’s perspective was not acknowledged on Hannity’s show. Instead, he chose Jay Sekulow, who had already announced several days ago - before either the White House or Rep. Joe Sestak had offered their explanations – that multiple crimes had been committed. The other guest was Scott Coffina, former White House counsel for President Bush.
Hannity asked Coffina, “Do you have any question in your mind whether or not a law was broken here, based on the facts as we know them now?”
“I don’t,” Coffina said. “Having Bill Clinton in the mix would indicate they want us to debate what is is, but really the story is quite clear.”
Sekulow sounded thrilled as he announced that “absolutely” at least two laws had been broken. “We need a special prosecutor looking at this!”
Coffina added, “Clear violation of the Hatch Act, Sean.”
“Absolutely!” Sekulow seconded.
I’m sure Hannity would not mind dispensing with any investigation and going straight to impeachment or even conviction. With "Great American" legal expert Hannity on the case, there's no need for "innocent until proven guilty."